xGW is composed of six so-called “generations,” each of which has existed back into the distant path, and all of which will likely exist into the distant future. The term “generation” is unfortunate, and comes from William Lind’s older “generations of war” framework, which is a form of Hegelian dialectalism that is to the analysis of war what Lamarckianism is to the analysis of natural selection. xGW has recently been the topic of conversation in the blogosphere. A short chapter dedicated to xGW is included in my monograph, Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity. A few of these posts are highglithed below.
I got to thinking about this subject after Lexington Green emailed me Smitten Eagle’s broadside against 4GW and 5GW, after which S.Eagle clarified his views. S. Eagle notes the need for evidence of actual 5GWs, while also emphasizing that organized violence requires organization:
Others have spoken about the role of the Super Empowered Individual (SEI) as a major actor in 5GW. I’m afraid that lone gunmen, in my conception of warfare, do not qualify as “organized violence.” For violence to be “organized,” it requires an Organization. An Organization of One is not an organization. I think there has to be more to organized violence than a single pissed-off dude with lots of cunning.
Finally, for 5GW to actually exist, it needs to have a strong track record of convincingly beating 4GW fighting forces. I’m afraid there really hasn’t been any evidence to support this. (Unless, of course, my denial of 5GW is evidence of it’s success…but if that’s the case, I think we’re getting a bit too close to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to speak anything authoritatively about 5GW, or any xGW for that matter.)
Younghusband at Coming Anarchy described war having “the ultimatum aim of having to break the enemy’s will to fight.” This definition defines 0GW (aimed at exterminating the enemy) and 5GW (aimed at preventing the enemy from observing his adversaries) out of being “wars” at all, perhaps leaving them instead of the worlds of barbarism and politics.
PurpleSlog discusses “superempowerd individuals (SEIs),” a term popularized by New York Times opinionist Tom Friedman and used in ill-defined discussions of 5GW that take place outside the xGW framework that do not define. SEI is to 5GW what airspace regulations are to the administrative divisions of Romania: uncorrelated topics that nonetheless will overlap in certain technical discussions
5GWers do not need to be SEIs.
SEIs can do more things then 5GW.
This is some overlap in the thinking and the people doing the thinking on 5GW and SEI.
They are not the same thing!
Curtis of Dreaming 5GW has a highly theoretical take on nuclear weapons, and how they relate to xGW:
The doctrine that “Technology does not drive doctrine!” has most often been used when arguing against the theories of those who would draw 5GW on the basis of the new technologies that are appearing and gaining prominence in the world. Drone aircraft may be used by a 2GW force, a 3GW force — or an open-source 4GW force should it acquire that technology. Quite regardless of the technology used, the style of 2GW, of 3GW, and of 4GW will be the same, since these types of combat are defined by how they: target the enemy’s OODA in different ways; seek different methods of overcoming that enemy; and indeed, within the xGW framework, are often utilized to combat a foe who depends upon a different generational style of combat for his own victory. (Cross-generational conflict.) Technological distinctions may in fact give a specific generational style of combat a slightly different appearance — one force used arrows, a newer variant uses bullets — but such distinctions do not define the strategic and tactical goals so much as color the style of warfare used by all within that xGW with a different tint; the xGW remains the same.
Lack of clarity hurts theoretical work, while precise discussion help it. Thinkers like Smitten Eagle help point out where this is lacking, and I appreciate those like Younghusband, PurpleSlog, and Curtis for continually challenging understanding in this important field.
